Allowed

S.Ramalingam v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC7 Dec 2020WP/26108/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras allowed a writ petition filed by a retired headmaster seeking restoration of pay, pension calculation, and refund of recovered benefits based on a precedent involving similarly placed persons, setting aside respondent orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; pay restored, pension recalculated with arrears, and recovered benefits refunded within ten weeks.

S.Ramalingam Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.12.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

S.Ramalingam .. Petitioner
Headmaster – Retired
Adi Dravidar Welfare Elementary School
Karumangudi
Vridhachalam Taluk
Cuddalore District.
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu .. Respondents
Rep by the Secretary to Government
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.
3.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
4.The District Collector
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
5.The Accountant General
Teynampet,
Chennai – 18.

¶6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the fourth and fifth respondent in relation to the proceedings issued in W.9/26064/2005 dated 31.05.2005 by the fourth respondent and in No.AG(A&E)/PEN PO9/2/R1681679/RTD/2006-2007/11941 dated 18.1.2007 and in AG(A&E)PEN PO9/2/R9-99/REV/2007-2008/1807 dated 1.5.2007 by the 5^th respondent and quash the same and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner at Rs.1760/- in the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶7

effect from 1.6.88 and fix the petitioner's pay at Rs.9650/- as on 31.5.2005 and then fix pension and release the amount of Rs.3,04,076/- recovered from the amount of gratuity and pension to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.J.Jessie Juliet

¶9

for Mr.R.Saseetharan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.P.Chinnadurai Spl. Government Pleader [R1 to R4]

¶11

Mr.V.Vijay Shankar Standing Counsel for R5

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned orders passed by the fourth and fifth respondents and seeking a direction of this Court to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner at Rs.1760/- in the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from 1.6.88 and to fix the petitioner's pay at Rs.9650/- as on 31.5.2005 and then fix pension and release the amount of Rs.3,04,076/- recovered from the amount of gratuity and pension to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a writ petition in W.P.No.20952 of 2007 has been filed by a similarly placed person seeking a relief as prayed by the petitioner in the present case, in which, this Court has set aside the impugned orders of the respondents, who are one and the same in both the cases, and the writ petition in W.P.No.20952 of 2007 came to be allowed vide order of this Court dated 15.12.2017.

¶16

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 also conceded to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He also produced a copy of the letter issued by the third respondent dated 02.12.2020 addressed to the Office of the Additional Government Pleader, High Court, Madras, stating about the filing of the present writ petition in W.P.No.26108/2007 and that no appeal has been preferred against the order of this Court dated 15.12.2017 in W.P.No.20952 of 2007 preferred by one C.P.Murugesan, seeking same relief.

¶17

It is relevant to extract paragraph No.15 of the order dated 15.12.2017 in W.P.No.20952 of 2007 :

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “ 15. In view of the above narrated facts, this Court

¶19

has no hesitation to allow the writ petition as the petitioner has made out a clear case for grant of relief in his favour. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned orders in Na.Ka.W.7/73438/2000 dated 12.04.2001 issued by the 3^rd respondent and in Na.Ka.No.A1/580/01 dated 24.5.2004 by the 5^th respondent and in No.AG(A&E)/PEN P09/5/M45464/RTD/2004-2005 dated 2.9.2005 by the 4^th respondent are set aside. There shall be a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner to the original status and his pension has to be calculated on the basis. The petitioner is entitled to arrears of such re-calculation. The respondents are also directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner's retirement benefits. The above directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶20

Considering the identical facts of the case in W.P.No.20952 of 2007, this Court has no hesitation to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned orders in W.9/26064/2005 dated 31.05.2005 issued by the fourth respondent and in No.AG(A&E)/PEN PO9/2/R1681679/RTD/2006-2007/11941 dated 18.1.2007 and AG(A&E)PEN PO9/2/R9-99/REV/2007-2008/1807 dated 1.5.2007 issued by the 5^th respondent are set aside. There shall be a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner to the original status and his pension has to be calculated on the basis. The petitioner is entitled to arrears of such re-calculation. The respondents are also directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner's retirement benefits. The above directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

-Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS III) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

To:

¶24

1.The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

2.The Director of Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

¶27

3.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶28

4.The District Collector Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶29

5.The Accountant General Teynampet, Chennai – 18.

¶30

+1 C.C. to MR.R.SASEETHRAN Advocate SR.NO.39196
+1 C.C. to MR.V.VIJAY SHANKAR Advocate SR.NO.39549
+1 C.C. to GOVERNMENT PLEADER Advocate SR.NO.39565
W.P.No.26108 of 2007
AJB (CO)
UMY (19.01.2021)

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Ramalingam v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramalingam v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Duraimanickam Vs S Karuthiah Pandian I a S

A.Arunthathi Vs the District Project Nutrition

P.Balasubramanian Vs Tamilandu State Transport

S. Ravivarman, Vs the Registrar

S.Kaliyaperumal Vs the Govt of Tamilnadu

A Pavalakodi Vs the Government of Tamilnadu